Is Singer taking the easy way out??

Originally posted by jedi90
so let me get this straight. what you guys are saying is that something as trivial as to the size of his "S" or how high his collar sets is gonna make or break this movie? sorry, but the only major difference i see is the darkening of the red. even in the comics his crest seems to change size depending on the artist, same thing with his cape. the superman in your sig has a crest only slightly bigger than routh's.

now to get back on topic.

no i don't think singer took the easy way out by following after supes2. superman 1 + 2 had a great story and seemed there was more to tell. hopefully superman returns will take the story into the direction it should had went.

not at all... but it is superman... the suit is a huge part of who he is... and the s on my sig is covering most of his chest...

and i honestly believe he shouldnt be trying to continue on from a 25 year old movie...

Originally posted by pr1983
not at all... but it is superman... the suit is a huge part of who he is... and the s on my sig is covering most of his chest...

and i honestly believe he shouldnt be trying to continue on from a 25 year old movie...

sorry, but i have to disagree. singer needed to continue for several reasons. another origin story would be redundant, the series didn't need a revamp like batman. everyone knows superman's story, even the ones who never read a comic or never seen the films. superman 1 and 2 are linked, superman 3 and 4 never feed off the previous two and seemed to be nothing more than a stand alone adventure. if you ever happened to catch an uncut version of superman 2 and see it the way donner had meant you would understand that there are many unanswered questions.

in the uncut version the fortress of solitude was destroyed by superman (we never see the fortress again in superman 3 and 4) and general zod taken away by the police (we presumed he was killed because of the theatrical version.) if you look at the new routh pic you will notice that the fortress looks like its in ruins. so i 'm hoping that singer is continuing some of what donner's original vision was.

nobody said we need an origin movie...

but this isnt donner's movie, its singers... he could easily do a new story that doesnt cover the origin... as you said its not needed...

eh....you might be right on that, but the donner films did lay down a good foundation for the films that shouldn't be discarded.

of course... but i mean, it was 25 years ago, times have changed...

if it was donner himself, maybe i wouldnt mind... but its not him, its singer... imo he made a mess of x-men and i just dont want the same thing happening to superman...

Originally posted by pr1983
of course... but i mean, it was 25 years ago, times have changed...

if it was donner himself, maybe i wouldnt mind... but its not him, its singer... imo he made a mess of x-men and i just dont want the same thing happening to superman...

from what i know of the plot i think singer has taken a good approach with the story. i like the fact that superman and lois aren't together unlike the comic with their peter and maryjane ripoff type marriage.

i didn't like xmen1 either, but i did enjoy xmen2.

The movie is still a good time away but rumors are out there. And about picking up from Superman 1 & 2 is bad because of the mistakes in the movies. Like Superman giving up his powers HOW THE HELL DO A MACHINE TAKE SUPERMAN POWERS I DON'T CARE IF IT IS KRYPTON STUFF IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN! ALSO LEX LUTHER FINDING SUPERMAN FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE IS STUPID! And all the small but mistakes Singer is using in the new film. Like Lex show up again at Superman place also Lois and Superman may not be together but they may have a child and that is STUPID and all that is taking it to far. Also one thing I didn't like in the first movie was they killed off Superman Earth dad but I am OK with that because the comic books did that but they fixed it down the line, killing off his dad make no point. And the costume may be a little different but it still look like Superman suit so I can take that. But this is just what I think. Please be good Superman Returns because Batman Begins was.

Originally posted by BB_hawk
The movie is still a good time away but rumors are out there. And about picking up from Superman 1 & 2 is bad because of the mistakes in the movies. Like Superman giving up his powers HOW THE HELL DO A MACHINE TAKE SUPERMAN POWERS I DON'T CARE IF IT IS KRYPTON STUFF IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN! ALSO LEX LUTHER FINDING SUPERMAN FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE IS STUPID! And all the small but mistakes Singer is using in the new film. Like Lex show up again at Superman place also Lois and Superman may not be together but they may have a child and that is STUPID and all that is taking it to far. Also one thing I didn't like in the first movie was they killed off Superman Earth dad but I am OK with that because the comic books did that but they fixed it down the line, killing off his dad make no point. And the costume may be a little different but it still look like Superman suit so I can take that. But this is just what I think. Please be good Superman Returns because Batman Begins was.

Yup, you are right... but i disagree with the costume, the costume should have been better than chirstopher's, not worst.

Originally posted by blockaderunner
Hey. New guy here, so be gentle (Hi Z).

Well, while I'm looking forward to the new movie, I still think that Bryan Singer took the easy way out by piggybacking on the Donner films instead of rebooting the character from a fresh perspective. What makes Superman (and Batman, and Spider-Man and so many other great characters) great is that they have been kept alive by so many creative forces that weren't tied down to any one incarnation of the character. He is a legend that has to be told and re-told to subsequent generations. With Superman Returns, Singer is basically saying "I have no unique creative vision regarding the character and, like the masses, I believe the Donner films only matter and that's what I'll run with,". That is a copout. Did Donner pick up where the 50's TV show left off? Did the 50's TV show pick up where the movie serials or Fleischer cartoons left off? Why this obsession with the Donner films? I've posted this question before on another board and someone said that Singer is basically picking up where the most recognizable incarnation of the character left off. Well if you applied that theory to Batman, then the most recent movie would have had brightly colored sets, wacky camera angles, and a paunchy Dark Knight punching out bad guys with a POW! and SOCK! because, in spite of the critical and financial success of Batman Begins, the 60's TV series is still the most recognizable incarnation of the character.

As I said, I'll see the movie and I think it might be good, in spite of a few flaws (Lois with a kid??? That alone is worth a thread), but I'm still a little disappointed that a guy who kicked so much ass with the X-Films is riding the coattails of another director.

There have been a lot of indications though, that this is not really a sequel, in some ways yes, but I think after we see it in a lot of ways no.